I'll have to confess that I did, J, but in my defense let me point out that it was irresistibly ignorable.
Is that because it showed up your hypocrisy?
It appears you need to work on reading comprehension, J. Yes, I've read Gene Smith's explanation of his Tomiko photograph many times. Are you suggesting that when Gene made that shot he screwed up and had to correct his error in the darkroom? How about AA's "Moonlight Over Hernandez?" When Ansel slammed on the brakes and rushed his camera up to the platform on top of his van, forgetting his light meter, having to guess at exposure, are you suggesting he blew the shot?.......
Nope not at all.
Maybe you cannot read your own writings correctly. I pointed out that you say anyone who changes anything more than basics in post didn't get it right in camera - your words not mine
, yet somehow people you like can tweak the image as much as they want after shutter is released. Adams and Smith certainly liked to spend a lot of time manipulating their images in darkroom.
Also it's W. Eugene Smith or can't you even read that part without getting it wrong.
......I think not. Both these guys knew exactly what they were after, and when they tripped their shutters they got everything their equipment was capable of getting. That's not the same thing as the guy who bangs away in wild abandon, not really knowing what he's after but hoping he'll be able to make a picture in his darkroom.
Good photographers using digital capture do exactly the same as the two photographers you mentioned. They capture the best raw file under the circumstances and then develop the image as best they can using modern tools. Nothing has actually changed other than the tools we use, which thankfully are much better than they used to be
It seems that just because some people aren't very good at photography and try and fix it in post, then all work in post [other by the scant few people you approve of naturally] is bad.
So I'm curious, who put you in charge of all photography?
As far as artificial light is concerned, it's a no-no on the street,.....
Funny as Magnum's Martin Parr uses flash very obviously when doing his colourful street photography and Satoki Nagata
does some interesting B+W street photography using strobes. Not to mention all those press photographers.
but there are cases where you can't avoid it. Here's an example. I wanted a readable picture of a local gravestone. The inscription was barely scratched into the surface of the stone, and has been worn away over the years. The sunlight never gets to the stone except in patches. But with a light stand and an SB910 zoomed to 200mm, I was able to bring out the surface detail. But this is an unusual situation
Yeah freaky unusual!
Strobe lighting, wow! Not many people use that!
But hey isn't that cheating? Adding lighting is not real
photography after all, as flash was not the natural light present in the scene. [/sarcasm]
Now something that I've noticed over the years is that the people who constantly berate others for using Photoshop or who dare to move more than two sliders in LR are without exception in my experience, awful at post production. And most of the time, their basic photography is severely lacking too, with scant evidence they have any eye for catching a photograph.
Though not surprisingly, quite a few armchair critics choose not to show their photography whilst they casually slag off other people's work.